What You Should Be Reading — 12/20/06

• Detained In Iraq by Brendan Skwire @ All Spin Zone; another American abused for doing “the right thing” by a system that has become dangerous for Americans and nonAmericans alike. I bet he thinks twice before he acts so heroically in the future.
  

  Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

  “Even Saddam Hussein had more legal counsel than I ever had,” said Mr. Vance, who said he planned to sue the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, on grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated. “While we were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow ourselves.”

• Detainee Abuse by Tim F. @ Balloon Juice; more on Donald Vance
  

  American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

  The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

• Our path to ‘victory’ ends in defeat by Mark Morford @ SFGate.com
  

  It’s not like we were overpowered. We weren’t outmanned or outgunned or outstrategized, hence we weren’t defeated in any “traditional,” kick-ass, take-names, sign-the-peace-accord way.

  It wasn’t because our can’t-lose military didn’t have the latest and greatest killing tools of all time, the biggest budget, the most heroic of baffled and misled young soldiers sort of but not really willing to go off and fight and die for a cause no one could adequately explain or justify to them.

  We still have the coolest, fastest planes. We still have the meanest billion-dollar technology. We still have the most imposing tanks and the most incredible weaponry and the badass night-vision goggles with the laser sights and the thermal heat-seeking readouts and the ability to track targets from 2 miles away in a dust storm. It doesn’t matter.

  What we don’t have is any idea what we’re doing, not anymore, not on the global stage. We lost this “war” and we lost it before we even began because we went in for all the wrong reasons and with all the wrong planning and with all the wrong leadership who had all the wrong motives based on all the wrong greedy self-serving insular faux cowboy BS that your kids and your grandkids will be paying for until about the year 2056.

  Maybe you don’t agree. Maybe you say, “Wait, wait, wait, it’s not over at all, and we haven’t lost yet. Isn’t the fighting still raging? Can’t we still ‘win’ even though we’re still losing soldiers by the truckload and thousands of innocent Iraqis are being brutally slaughtered every month and isn’t Dubya still standing there, brow scrunched and confounded as a monkey clinging onto a shiny razor blade, refusing to let go and free us from the deadly trap, ignoring the Iraq Study Group and trying to figure out a way to stay the course and never give in and “mission accomplished” even as every single human around him, from the top generals to crusty old James Baker to the new and shockingly honest secretary of defense, says we are royally screwed and Iraq is now a vicious and chaotic civil war and it’s officially one of the worst disasters in American history?” Oh wait, you just answered your own question.

  Yes, technically, the war is still on. The fighting is not over. And, yes, you can even say we (brutally, tactlessly) installed ourselves with sufficient ego to give us a modicum of violent, volatile control over the gulf region’s remaining petroleum reserves — which was, of course, much of the point in the first place.

  But the nasty us-versus-them, good-versus-evil ideology is over. Ditto the numb sense of Bush’s brutally simpleminded American “justice.” Any lingering hint of anything resembling a truly valid and lucid and deeply patriotic reason for wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives and roughly an entire generation’s worth of international respect? Gone.

  What’s left is one lingering, looming question: How do we accept defeat? How do we deal with the awkward, identity-mauling, ego-stomping idea that, once again, America didn’t “win” a war it really had no right to launch in the first place? After all, isn’t this the American slogan: “We may not always be right, but we are never wrong”?

  It’s still our most favorite idea, the thing our own childlike president loves to talk most about, burned into our national consciousness like a bad tattoo: We always win. We’re the good guys. We’re the chosen ones. We’re the goddamn cavalry, flying the flag of truth, wrapped in strip malls and Ford pickups and McDonald’s franchises. Right?

• Ticking Bombast by Jim Henley @ Reason Magazine
  

  Let’s say you’ve caught a suspect and you’re sure he’s a terrorist, and you’re sure there’s a nuclear bomb somewhere in Manhattan, and you’re sure he knows where it is, and you’re sure this particular terrorist has been trained to resist torture just long enough that you could never get the true location of the bomb out of him in time…

  […]

  …It’s always presented as a “What would you do?” dilemma, but in truth it has nothing to do with you. The proper question is: “What should we allow officials embedded in the security bureaucracy to do with impunity? What shall we let their bosses order without legal repercussion?”

  You could construct 100 hypotheticals involving utilitarian tradeoffs and terrorism, none less plausible or implausible than the first. What if the suspect demands you fix the World Series and this was your team’s best chance at a championship in 50 years? What if he says he’ll tell you where the bomb is if someone will explain the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, in words he can understand? What if he’ll make sure the bomb doesn’t go off in exchange for a ride on the space shuttle? Hey—it could happen.

  If you could stop a bomb from killing 1 million Manhattanites at the cost of your own life, would you do it? What if it would mean imprisonment for the rest of your life? Could you live with yourself if you let all those people die for your own comfort? If you couldn’t, and you somehow just had to torture this bad guy to stop the bomb, then you ought to do it anyway and face your punishment. Right? Leave possible pardons and runaway juries aside. We are hard men for hard times, and we want hard make-believe conundrums.

  Here’s another poser: Suppose you’re an innocent suspect whom your captors are convinced is a terrorist. They don’t believe your protestations, so they decide to torture you into a confession. The more you protest your innocence, the more frustrated they get that you won’t “crack.” What do you say to get them to stop? How do you get them not to decide they need to hurt you even more?

  That puzzle has two features that make it unpopular with torture advocates. It asks you to sympathize with the victim rather than the perpetrator. And for too many people, it isn’t a hypothetical at all.

• Violent crime continues to rise in the U.S. by Joe in DC @ AMERICAblog; I heard this same story on NPR last night. Unfortunately, the crime-fighting money has been re-allocated to Homeland Security, which only hands it out to fight terrorism, not actual domestic crime. This is just another sign that the Bush Administration has misused the 9/11 attacks and made us less safe as a result.
• A Bad Homecoming? by Naomi @ Martian Anthropologist
  

  An unknown percentage of these “soldiers of fortune” are responsible human beings. I propose that the number of the good ones are far outnumbered by the bad ones. No one has the statistics. No one! This unregulated industry is a time-bomb. Human nature suggests that (1) any one in it for the money, glory and/or power is not one of the good guys; and (2) there have always been men attracted to the “glory of war”. Although, to be fair, mercenaries helped us win the Revolutionary War.

  We know from the Abu Ghraib scandal that private contractors were in charge of US soldiers guarding the prisoners, clearly against the rules of warfare, or were Department of Defense-hired interrogators. There have been reports that some of these thugs were employed by prisons here in the US and had been disciplined and/or fired for prisoner abuse. A few well-placed “now hiring” ads drew them out, and they scurried out of the woodwork like cockroaches, signed the employment contracts promising better money than they’d ever dreamed of, and they climbed on a plane to the Middle East. And in the ME, they found that they had few rules to follow and no prosecution for any crime they committed (by Presidential Order). What heaven! You can imagine them asking themselves, “Why can’t it be this way back home?”

  Fast forward to the end of our presence in Iraq. Men will be coming home, some of whom had no morals, scruples or value systems before they went over there–amoral, sociopathic. Deprived of their big paychecks, likely none of which was saved, and of the “anything goes” that they had operated under in Iraq, what will they do?Returning soldiers, such as the “ready-reservists” and National Guard, may be faced with unemployment, although by federal law, an employer has to keep their job open for them. But what about the thugs who were unemployed at the time they signed on? What will they do?My prediction is: they will gravitate to gangs, take to serious crime, turn to alcohol and/or drugs, even become “drug lords”. Or maybe scope out a woman who looks weak, and prey on her; maybe knock her around some “when she deserves it”. I mean, what do you do with that “mean streak” that sustained you in Iraq, that brought so much satisfaction?

tags: detainees, Donald Vance, Iraq, terrorism, violence, soldiers of fortune, private military, torture

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.